You are here: / / Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to suspend child support, the Second Department explained the criteria for early suspension of the child support obligation:

Generally, parents have a statutory duty to continually support their children until they reach 21 years of age (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]…). ” However, where the noncustodial parent establishes that his or her right of reasonable access to the child has been unjustifiably frustrated by the custodial parent, child support payments may be suspended'” … .

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to suspend his obligation to pay child support. The plaintiff alleges continuing conduct on the part of the defendant which, if proven, would not “rise to the level of deliberate frustration’ or active interference’ with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights”… . Jones v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05879, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO RAISE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR CONCERNING A JURY NOTE ON APPEAL; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DNA FOUND ON THE MURDER VICTIM’S BODY WAS LINKED TO THE DEFENDANT WHO WAS ARRESTED TWO YEARS AFTER THE MURDER; THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE VICTIM OR TO THE AREA WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FOUND; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT, FOUND THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).
HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT).
THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR AN OIL SPILL DID NOT MEET THE STRICT CRITERIA FOR AN EXCLUSION (SECOND DEPT).
BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE A RETAINER STATEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS’ PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT SANTIAGO’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ICE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND SANTIAGO’S NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Relationship of Prenuptial Agreement to Temporary Maintenance and Award of... Determination of Paternity Not in Child’s Best Interest; Mother Equitably...